The missing links
The narrowly partial focus of the proposed London Middle East conference, Ibrahim Nafie argues, will undermine its success
To place peace efforts back on course, British Prime Minister Tony Blair invited the Palestinians, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, along with members of the Quartet, to meet in London in mid-January. The British PM announced that Israel would not be invited to the conference, primarily because of the israeli elections scheduled for 28 January.
What might such a conference accomplish in the absence of Israel? What might London have to offer following last week's Quartet meeting in Washington? Such questions quickly subsided when a spokesman for Blair announced that the conference would concentrate on investigating the progress already made in Palestinian reforms, and ways for the international community to help promote and hasten them.
The implications are clear. Not only will the January conference focus on a single dimension of what can only be seen as a comprehensive and integrated process, but "reform" is understood to apply to Palestinians alone, as though Palestinian policies, structural flaws and the personalities of PA leaders were solely accountable for the stalling of peace. All that is required for the peace process to resume, according to this view, is a solution to Palestinian problems.
Nor can Blair's initiative be assessed in isolation from the events of the Quartet meeting, in which protracted wrangling gave rise to fellow participants -- Russia, the EU and the UN -- conceding Washington's view. The "roadmap" for a settlement process should be deferred until the results of the forthcoming Israeli elections so as not to exercise an undue influence over an Israeli electorate on its way to the ballot box. In the mean time, it is PA reforms that should be prioritised.
The closing statement of the Quartet meeting encapsulated the US viewpoint, revealing it to be very closely attuned to the Israeli perspective. Calling for "a settlement on the basis of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace," it went on to urge all Palestinians, both individuals and groups, to put an end to acts of terrorism against Israelis anywhere.
The statement is clearly tailored to the Israeli position; and it glares in the face of reality, snubbing the provisions of international conventions and the principles of international law. The exhortation to end Palestinian "acts of terrorism against Israelis anywhere" contradicts a universally acknowledged principle. Indeed acts of resistance against the occupation forces and Israeli settlers in the occupied territories are explicitly sanctioned under provision of the UN Charter; they cannot credibly be termed terrorist.
The statement also implies that Palestinians are to blame for the illegal reoccupation of their territories, a halt to violence being conceived of as a precondition for the withdrawal of the Israeli forces. On acts of brutality perpetrated by the Israeli forces against innocent Palestinian civilians, by contrast, the Quartet statement could only afford to stay neutral.
Hours after the statement was uttered, Washington used its veto to block a Security Council resolution condemning Israel for the murder of three UN employees by Israeli soldiers in the West Bank and Gaza last month, and for the demolition of a large World Food Programme warehouse in Gaza. The resolution, presented by Syria, had been supported by 12 nations, including four of the permanent members of the Security Council: France, the UK, Russia and China. The US veto was a great disappointment for the Arabs, as the Egyptian permanent delegate to the UN, Ahmed Abul-Gheit, announced; PA officials condemned it as an incentive for the Israeli government to persist in violating the resolutions of the international community.
It was in the light of all this that Tony Blair invited several Arab governments to discuss PA reforms with members of the Quartet in London. Neither the Israeli occupation's systematic destruction of PA infrastructure nor the part played by Israeli terror in spurring Palestinian organisations to retaliate through armed operations staged in various locations are included on the agenda. The British PM's proposed conference also implies that PA reforms are sufficient to generate a climate conducive to the resumption of peace efforts, ignoring the occupying power's role in undermining the authority and credibility of the PA leadership among Palestinians and promoting the sway of resistance groups and factions that favour armed struggle over negotiations. One would have at least expected Blair to call for embracing the demand that Israel stop its aggression against Palestinians and unblock funds earmarked for the PA; for such actions could only facilitate the necessary reforms.
There is no question that PA reform is an imperative in the interest of the Palestinian people. Yet the problem cannot be solved by reducing it to PA reform alone. Rather, it must be resolved in connection with two other vital dimensions, failing which PA reform will be of little value in generating progress: the restoration of calm, and negotiations.
In the consequent triad of "calm, reform and negotiation", I would give precedence to "calm" on the grounds that it is a precondition for reform. The restoration of calm should entail a complete halt to violence on both sides; I, for one, have proposed that the Arab nations guarantee the containment of violence on the Palestinian side, while Washington offer a similar guarantee in relation to the Israeli side. I have suggested, in addition, that bringing parties back to the negotiating table should be contingent on and proceed in tandem with sustained calm and reform.
Egypt has launched an intensive drive to effect a reconciliation among the diverse Palestinian factions with a view to a halt of violence. It has engaged in multilateral talks with Fatah and Hamas and bilateral talks with diverse Palestinian organisations and factions. One had hoped that concerned parties, and Washington in particular, would undertake similar procedures to check the aggressive policies of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. Sadly, Washington not only failed to restrain Israel, but judging by the closing statement of the Quartet meeting and the recent veto of the Security Council condemnation, it has in effect acted to encourage Israeli excess.
Turning to the third side of the triangle, it should be driven home to Palestinians and Israelis alike that the restoration of calm and PA reform will lead to the resumption of negotiations and eventually an end to the conflict based on the relevant UN resolutions and the creation of an independent Palestinian state on the territories occupied by Israel in 1967. It should be made clear that progress towards these ends must proceed within the framework of the proposals made by former US President Clinton, reformulated in the "roadmap" plan, which should have been adopted by the Quartet during its last Washington meeting. Yet, by some paradoxical logic, Washington prevailed upon other members of the committee to defer the disclosure of this roadmap until after Israeli elections.
If this is how the situation stands, what does Blair hope to accomplish by a conference scheduled for mid-January? Does he believe it will achieve the desired PA reforms? Will those reforms, as important as they are, change Palestinian attitudes to resistance without any reciprocation on the part of Israel? Will they result in a resumption of negotiations given the absence both of a specific time frame and an American plan stipulating the broad outlines for a settlement process that clarifies to each side how they should proceed, the costs they will have to pay and the rewards they will reap?
Washington has yet to address these vital questions. In view of the importance of such questions in reviving the peace process, many Arabs suspect that the UK's proposal of a conference at this time is linked to the intensive US and British drive to prepare for a strike against Iraq. The conference is intended to give the impression that some progress is being made on the way to resolving the Arab- Israeli conflict; its exclusive focus on Palestinian reform should lead people to believe that this is the principal avenue to progress.
That the proposed conference is open to such suspicions is due to the fact that it emanates from a position that ignores necessary principles of reciprocity and interdependence between the processes of PA reform, the restoration of calm and the resumption of negotiations. Sustained calm, bolstered by powerful guarantees, encourages reform, clear frameworks and time frames for negotiations encourage the perpetuation of calm.
In an article written especially for Al-Ahram, the British prime minister acknowledged that Palestinian reform should be part of a broader, integrated process. Specifically, he argued that it has become essential for all to work towards reactivating the negotiating process between the two sides. The Quartet committee, he added, is still making a sincere effort to realise this aim and thus inspire a move forward. The "roadmap," he wrote, was a practical way to delineate the steps that will lead to the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel by 2005.
Nevertheless, the prime minister's focus still remains almost exclusively trained on Palestinian reform. In his article to Al-Ahram, he argued that progress on the Israeli track will be limited in the short term, due to Israeli elections. He, therefore, appealed to the international community to use this period of time to improve opportunities for applying the proposed "roadmap" as soon as a new Israeli government has come to power.
In my opinion, there are better ways to "use this period of time" than asking the Palestinians to continue the process of reform. For example, some serious international action could be taken towards compelling Israel to halt its aggression and alleviate the suffering it routinely inflicts on the Palestinian people. This might also be the time for the Quartet to deliver a very explicit message to the Israeli public on the eve of the elections. This message is that what is needed to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict is a comprehensive vision implemented within a specific time frame that delineates mutual responsibilities and places the question of Palestinian reform in its proper context.
Blair's latest initiative lacks the necessary comprehensiveness as it does not explicitly address the three interrelated components for reviving the peace process: calm, reform and negotiations. The question is not how to fill up a space of time or create the illusion that progress is being made on resolving the Arab- Israeli conflict. Rather, the world must address the issue of Palestinians undergoing a process of physical and moral destruction right before its eyes. As for the British PM's invitation of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan to attend a January conference, it is difficult to see what purpose it might serve.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 26 Dec. 2002 - 1 Jan. 2003 (Issue No. 618)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2002/618/op1.htm